ARM leaps forward!

[psxphill]

According to this blog they are looking to go head-to-head with x86

They can try to go head to head with x86, but they only really compete with the atom. So it's more likely to keep x86 out of the embedded space, than it is to increase market share.

[psxphill]

From a business perspective, I imagine embedded devices is the money maker currently, so that might be well on purpose.

To meet x86 head on you need to be able to beat them in all of it's strong areas, not just defend your own.
 
They can complain about x86 being the wrong instruction set, but to prove it they need to launch an ARM core that can beat an i7 and they can't.
 
As soon as ARM is faster as well as cheaper and less power hungry than x86, then everyone will switch everything to it.

[psxphill]

By that logic, it wouldn't have made sense to move to a PPC in the 360 when the original Xbox used an Intel processor.

It only made sense for Microsoft to go for a processor from IBM and a graphics chip from ATI, because Microsoft didn't have a great relationship with Intel or NVidia after the original xbox.
 
Plus they got the CPU cheap because Sony helped pay for it.
 
None of the next gen consoles are going to be ARM based, it's just not good enough. It's ok for tablets or a nas, maybe even for a computer that isn't going to be pushed too hard.

[psxphill]

Rumor has it that Sony will use an AMD APU in its PS4 along with a Cell processor.

Well not just 1 cell, the rumours was that it's double the core's than the PS3. If they want backwards compatibility with the PS3 then they'll need to include the Cell though, no way that is going to be emulated.
 
They could probably emulate the PS2 on the PS4 as well, but whether they will is another matter.

[psxphill]

Since they eliminated PS2 emulation on the most recent PS3s, that's unlikely, but they could do it via software.

Not exactly the most recent, they removed PS2 backward compatibility 5 years ago. It was only in the models available in the first 12 months. Software compatibility was hidden in them for ages, but if you hack the console to use it then you'll find that a lot of games run really slow.
 
I guess it depends on how quick the PS4 is.

[psxphill]

The same could be asked about why they maintained x86 builds of OSX before they even had any plans to switch to Intel. Not every internal project at a company is directly tied to current business prospects.

I think it was always the plan, in the meantime it served as a stick to beat Motorola/IBM with.
 
Back when people knew about computers, they had to differentiate on technology. Apple didn't use those stupid Intel processors that IBM picked, because they were different to IBM.
 
They needed to wait until enough people wouldn't care that it had an Intel chip instead of something from Motorola/IBM & they now just rely on the case design and UI to differentiate.
 
They also had to wait for Intel to bury the p4. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple motivated Intel to produce something better.

[psxphill]

That really doesn't make a lot of sense, considering how many years they spent on PowerPC and how much they loved to place themselves in opposition to Intel. I seriously doubt that twelve years of PowerPC was just a phase they were going through while they plotted how best to dump the technology they'd invested all that time and money in.

Apple were using PowerPC before Jobs came back. It wouldn't make any sense to ditch it when Intel and their customers weren't ready.
 
Jobs switch from Motorola to Intel at next.